(a) Like which Tana do we initially establish the Neherdai, who even accept
a discrepancy in the testimony of the two witnesses concerning a black Manah
and a white Manah?

(b) On what grounds do we reject that?

(c) So we establish the Neherdai like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. What does
*he* say in a Beraisa, concerning one pair of witnesses, one of whom
testifies that Reuven lent Shimon a Manah, and the other, that he lent him
two, according to ...

... Beis Shamai?

... Beis Hillel?

(d) And what does he say in the same case, only where one *pair of
witnesses* says one Manah, and the other says two?

2)

(a) What did Rebbi Ami rule in a case where one witness testified that
Reuven owes Shimon a barrel of wine, and the other one, that he owes him a
barrel of oil?

(b) What do we ask on this, even after establishing it like Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar?

(c) How do we answer that?

(d) On what grounds did Rebbi combine the testimonies of one witness who
testified that Reuven lent Shimon a Manah in the upper-attic, and the other
witness, who testified that he lent him a Manah in the lower-attic?

3)

(a) In what connection do we quote the Pasuk in Mishlei "Holech Rachil
Megaleh Sod" with regard to our Mishnah?

(b) Why did Rebbi Ami expel a certain Talmid from the Beis-Hamedrash,
coupled with the announcement 'Dein Galya Raza!'?

(c) How many years earlier had they discussed that secret?

4)

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says 'Kol Z'man she'Meivi
Re'ayah, Soser es ha'Din'?

(b) According to the Tana Kama, if Beis-Din order a litigant to bring all
his proofs within thirty days, then he must do so. What does Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel say?

(c) In which other case do the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel repeat
their Machlokes?

(d) What does the Tana say about a case where one of the litigants,
realizing that he is about to lose his case, suddenly produces two
witnesses, or pulls out documentary evidence from his belt?

5)

(a) In which of the two cases in our Mishnah does Rabah bar Rav Huna rule
like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(b) Why does he then add that the Halachah is not like the Chachamim? Is
that not obvious?

6)

(a) What does Rabah bar Rav Huna say with regard to the Halachah in the
second Machlokes between the Chachamim and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(b) There too, we ask why Rabah bar Rav Huna finds it necessary to add 'Ein
Halachah ke'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel'. What do we answer this time? Which
ruling of Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan is he coming to negate?

(c) Why did we not give the same answer as we gave previously (regarding
Lechatchilah and Bedi'eved)?

7)

(a) What did that young defendant reply in court (see Tosfos DH 'Chayveih'),
when Rav Nachman asked him whether he had any witnesses or proofs?

... a third party (unsigned) or if it appears after the signatures on the Sh'tar-Chov itself?

(b) What is the reason for this latter ruling?

(c) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Nachman?

(d) What does Rav Nachman have to say about this?

10)

(a) What does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan appear to mean when he ...

... permits a litigant to bring proofs or to withdraw 'ad she'Yistatem Ta'anosav'? Like which Tana does this go?

... then adds 've'Yomar Kirvu Ish P'loni u'Peloni ve'Ye'iduni'? Like which Tana does that go?

(b) How do we try and solve the discrepancy the Kashya by establishing the
entire Beraisa like one Tana?

(c) And how do we refute this suggestion by citing Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar
Rebbi Yochanan? What does he say?

(d) So we re-quote Rebbi Yochanan, this time presented by Rav Shmuel bar
Yehudah. Assuming that the litigant said 'Ein Li Eidim, Ein Li Re'ayah',
in which case will Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless accept ...

... witnesses?

... documentary evidence?

11)

(a) What is the 'Makom ha'Va'ad'? What is the advantage of having one's case
judged there?

(b) Why did Rebbi Elazar object to Rav Dimi quoting Rabbi Yochanan that one
litigant can force the other to take their case to the Makom ha'Va'ad? What
sort of Ba'alei-Din was Rebbi Yochanan talking about?

(c) Rav Safra agreed with Rebbi Elazar? What did they both rule?

(d) What do Beis-Din subsequently do, should ..

... they encounter difficulties with regard to the Halachah?

... the litigant request their reason for having obligated him, in writing?

12)

(a) Who goes to whom in a case of a Yavam and a Yevamah?

(b) Rebbi Ami adds 'Afilu mi'Teverya le'Tzipori'. What is the significance
of that statement?

(c) How does Rav Kahana extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei
"ve'Kar'u Lo Ziknei Iyro"?

(a) When they referred to Mar Ukva the Dayan as 'li'de'Ziv Leih ke'Bar
Bisya', they may have meant that his face shone like that of Moshe Rabeinu,
who was brought up by Bisyah, the daughter of Par'oh. How else might we
amend 'ke'Bar Bisyah' to read?

(b) Mar Ukva's face might have shone as a result of his wisdom. According to
Seifer Hagadah, the shine was a form of halo in he shape of a Menorah.
What was the cause of that?

14)

(a) What was the gist of Mar Ukva's complaint against his brother Yirmiyah?

(b) What was the problem with the Beis-Din's wording, when they first wrote
to the Beis-Din in Bavel 'Imru Lo', and then 'Hisi'uhu ve'Yir'eh Paneinu
bi'Teverya'?

(c) Why was it in fact, necessary to call Mar Ukva and his brother to come
to them?

(d) Then why did they first ask the Beis-Din in Bavel to deal with the case?